Although I have no statistics to back it up, I would venture to say that the majority of home schoolers in America share conservative values. An article I read today regarding the public school curriculum in England gave me some pause for concern. Early statements regarding Obama's educational directives, indicate an emphasis on the "global economy" and more involvement from the federal level starting at birth. This article from The Guardian reveals that Britain's educational overseer plans to focus on more "modern" literary masterpieces such as Wikipedia (which is comprised of information supplied by readers) and Twitter. Another emphasis which raises an alarm and sounds familiar to that of Obama's recent proposals is a greater push toward social involvement. Obama has made the same statement regarding a "civilian security force" which would require mandated service of the nation's youth at some level. This is apparently an attempt to fund the first four years in a local community college, although no connection is made between the community service and college tuition at this point.
I know how this could sound alarming to conservatives who cringe at anything which smacks of socialism. However, I have lived on an Israeli kibbutz, which is basically socialist in its philosophy and practice, and I have worked as a lead organizer for a faith-based community organization. I can understand how Obama would see these requirements as productive and beneficial to the youth and the country. However, when policies are implemented on a broad scale in an attempt to target specific issues, they seldom work. In fact, many of Obama's policies take president Bush's failed "no child left behind" requirements and actually extend them. Since such broad policies cannot address the individual needs of each particular child, invariably some children "fall through the cracks". Which is fine unless it happens to be YOUR child!
Home-schoolers are watching the Obama presidency with much trepidation. For the most part, home-schoolers are students of education. Their goal is to give their children the best education possible. They typically encourage educational activity and limit other activities which would prove to be detrimental or distracting from the academic process, such as television, or video games. They also guard their childrens' extracurricular involvement, making sure that the educational environment remains protected and free from as many distractions as possible. Their children are encouraged to think independently and the natural curiosity which children possess is cultivated and nourished. These are all things which the public school system cannot regulate. They are also essential building blocks of learning. In fact, if Obama were enough of a visionary, he would take a more active approach at steering the educational system back toward the home. With today's technilogical advancements, curriculum and materials are readily available. However, it appears that his hands are tied with special interest groups, lobbyists, traditional thinking, and a personal agenda. As a result, it appears that the public school system will come further under the scrutiny of the federal government and less under the care of the "village" in which the child lives.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Conspiracy theories...
As I have already stated, I grew up in a rural community. I was taught conservative values and internalized them completely. Because of my temperament, the absence of a strong father figure, and a number of other factors, I had a tremendous need to be accepted. I started attending a strong, evangelical church at a young age which had a major impact on my life. Although I did not "fit in" with my peers at the church, I adopted the values that were taught because I thought they would make me a "good" person and ensure my acceptance as an individual. These values formed the bedrock of my belief system and I viewed them as "rock-solid", unshakeable. My temperament is introverted and highly sensitive. I am an "N" in the Myers Briggs, Jungian personality profile, which means I am highly idealistic, romantic, and want the world to be a better place. It also means, however, that I strive for "reality" and authenticity. In other words, it's more like; "Dreams CAN come true, it CAN happen to you". Obviously, I invested myself in my religion with a fanatic zeal.
Somewhere, around the age of 30, the "weight" of carrying the banner of truth and righteousness, plus the hypocricy of not being able to live up to the standards I espoused began taking its toll. I had to face the fact that most of my righteousness was "self righteousness" and it stank. I began questioning my beliefs and conclusions and started backing off of my religious zeal. It took me more than ten years to extricate myself from my former conditioning and the truth remains very elusive to this day. I now find myself on the outside looking in at my former value system, and I realize that I am not alone in this.
I have never been one to believe in "conspiracy theories". In fact, I felt pretty much the same way about 9/11 as David Letterman did when he had Bill O'Reilly on his show and was getting raked over the coals. America had been violated and we needed to do something. Now, I have heard stories about the Illuminati and the Tri-Lateral commission for years. Like the Kennedy assassination plots, they have always had a "ring" of eccentricity attached to them. A sort of maniacal paranoia that leaves the boundaries of rational thought. However, given the light of present circumstances, and watching particular things begin to unfold, I cannot help but wonder how much influence major banks and financial institutions have had over our government over the years. Liberals claim to be impervious to the influences of this wealth, yet they clearly reap the benefits of it and do not appear to be in any hurry to disassociate from it.
I have long decried the atrocities committed by our government against Blacks and Native Americans. However, I have comforted myself with the knowledge that there were good people in government who hated and fought against those atrocities as well, and that eventually the "good" won out. I now believe that this is nothing short of denial. While our country has made some strides against racial hatred and prejudice, we have done virtually nothing to stem the economic blight created by failed economic policies and former atrocities. In fact, further atrocities have been committed by both sides of the political spectrum, whether it be the Republicans and their collusion with financial institutions, or the Democrats and their crippling, patronizing, welfare policies. Neither a dictatorial, nor a paternalistic state (which in fact amount to the same thing) is what our founding fathers envisioned when establishing the republic in which we live.
One of my favorite movies is The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise and Ken Watanabe. It is the story of a US military officer who is hired as a consultant to the Japanese in order to help suppress the Samurai who have risen up against the government in protest against a new move toward westernization and capitalism. A couple of scenes portray the US Ambassador trying to make an arms deal with Japan. I cannot help but feel that our history is rife with this sort of impropriety and that, as a nation, we have "sewn the wind and reaped the whirlwind".
Right now, in my life and under present circumstances, Ron Paul is a patriot as heroic as any in our nation's history. He is standing as a single beacon of truth and proclaiming his message in the onslaught of criticism, ridicule and outright hatred. He continues in spite of certain threats of imprisonment and death. His message is simple; "Peace and Responsibility". It is a message that crosses racial lines, party lines, philosophical lines, and even ecumenical lines. However, now that the conservatives have lost the election, and Dr. Paul has gained some credibility, they are grabbing his message and incorporating it as their own. Slowly, the prejudices and paranoid thinking of the far right are being associated with the message of "peace and responsibility" causing it to polarize in opposition to a need for some type of social reform.
I still don't go so far as to say it is all one big conspiracy as the video below suggests. However, I do agree with Thomas Jefferson in that; "Scenes are now to take place as will open the eyes of credulity and of insanity itself, to the dangers of a paper medium abandoned to the discretion of avarice and of swindlers". I believe that our nation has gotten itself into dire financial straits and as anyone who is facing huge debt would be required to do, we must consolidate our resources and take drastic measures to bring our economy back under control. The "entangling alliances" that the Obama administration appear to be courting are quite disturbing. I also find it remarkable that in the face of clear, intelligent instruction, such as provided by Dr. Paul, adherence to "party code" and agenda appear to take precedence. This suggests that the primary objective is not to help "the people"; rather, it would seem, the goal is to implement an agenda.
Somewhere, around the age of 30, the "weight" of carrying the banner of truth and righteousness, plus the hypocricy of not being able to live up to the standards I espoused began taking its toll. I had to face the fact that most of my righteousness was "self righteousness" and it stank. I began questioning my beliefs and conclusions and started backing off of my religious zeal. It took me more than ten years to extricate myself from my former conditioning and the truth remains very elusive to this day. I now find myself on the outside looking in at my former value system, and I realize that I am not alone in this.
I have never been one to believe in "conspiracy theories". In fact, I felt pretty much the same way about 9/11 as David Letterman did when he had Bill O'Reilly on his show and was getting raked over the coals. America had been violated and we needed to do something. Now, I have heard stories about the Illuminati and the Tri-Lateral commission for years. Like the Kennedy assassination plots, they have always had a "ring" of eccentricity attached to them. A sort of maniacal paranoia that leaves the boundaries of rational thought. However, given the light of present circumstances, and watching particular things begin to unfold, I cannot help but wonder how much influence major banks and financial institutions have had over our government over the years. Liberals claim to be impervious to the influences of this wealth, yet they clearly reap the benefits of it and do not appear to be in any hurry to disassociate from it.
I have long decried the atrocities committed by our government against Blacks and Native Americans. However, I have comforted myself with the knowledge that there were good people in government who hated and fought against those atrocities as well, and that eventually the "good" won out. I now believe that this is nothing short of denial. While our country has made some strides against racial hatred and prejudice, we have done virtually nothing to stem the economic blight created by failed economic policies and former atrocities. In fact, further atrocities have been committed by both sides of the political spectrum, whether it be the Republicans and their collusion with financial institutions, or the Democrats and their crippling, patronizing, welfare policies. Neither a dictatorial, nor a paternalistic state (which in fact amount to the same thing) is what our founding fathers envisioned when establishing the republic in which we live.
One of my favorite movies is The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise and Ken Watanabe. It is the story of a US military officer who is hired as a consultant to the Japanese in order to help suppress the Samurai who have risen up against the government in protest against a new move toward westernization and capitalism. A couple of scenes portray the US Ambassador trying to make an arms deal with Japan. I cannot help but feel that our history is rife with this sort of impropriety and that, as a nation, we have "sewn the wind and reaped the whirlwind".
Right now, in my life and under present circumstances, Ron Paul is a patriot as heroic as any in our nation's history. He is standing as a single beacon of truth and proclaiming his message in the onslaught of criticism, ridicule and outright hatred. He continues in spite of certain threats of imprisonment and death. His message is simple; "Peace and Responsibility". It is a message that crosses racial lines, party lines, philosophical lines, and even ecumenical lines. However, now that the conservatives have lost the election, and Dr. Paul has gained some credibility, they are grabbing his message and incorporating it as their own. Slowly, the prejudices and paranoid thinking of the far right are being associated with the message of "peace and responsibility" causing it to polarize in opposition to a need for some type of social reform.
I still don't go so far as to say it is all one big conspiracy as the video below suggests. However, I do agree with Thomas Jefferson in that; "Scenes are now to take place as will open the eyes of credulity and of insanity itself, to the dangers of a paper medium abandoned to the discretion of avarice and of swindlers". I believe that our nation has gotten itself into dire financial straits and as anyone who is facing huge debt would be required to do, we must consolidate our resources and take drastic measures to bring our economy back under control. The "entangling alliances" that the Obama administration appear to be courting are quite disturbing. I also find it remarkable that in the face of clear, intelligent instruction, such as provided by Dr. Paul, adherence to "party code" and agenda appear to take precedence. This suggests that the primary objective is not to help "the people"; rather, it would seem, the goal is to implement an agenda.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Those who fail to learn from history...
Why are we going down this road again? I mean, after just a few short minutes on the internet I read an article that pointed out rather conclusively that government bailouts of failing institutions is bad, and that support of entrepreneurial, free-market endeavors is good. You would think Yale and Harvard political science majors would already know this stuff! I found it while Googling John Stuart Mill, whom I knew was favorable of a society in which "personal happiness and fulfillment" was the ultimate goal. Imagine a world in which "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness" were actually common objectives! In fact, Mill is one of the founders of the Utilitarian philosophy which Jefferson so adamantly adhered to. Mill's argument is basically that the "common good" is in everyone's interest and that as long as everyone strove toward the same end, harmony would be the prevailing result.
John Locke's position of natural "God-given" rights introduces a moral component into the question of social politics. To be sure, it is not possible for government and law to be completely amoral. However, it is the premise of these two philosophies that creates the unique approaches taken toward governmental involvement. Mill's approach is one which simply considers what is in the best interests of everyone. "The best for the most." Locke's position, while arriving at the same conclusion of individual sovereignty and personal freedom, carries an assumption which leads to a different course of action. Under Mill's system, government is a necessary evil, which is exactly how Jefferson saw it. A group of people, chosen by the community to see that the community's best interests are maintained and upheld, and to ensure that no one individual's personal freedom is infringed upon by anyone else, be it minority or majority! However, under Locke's philosophy, a moral element is introduced. Government begins to take on a more "paternal" function. Because human rights are "God-given", the work of protecting those rights now becomes sacred. The problem with any religious argument is that it is subject to personal interpretation. Rather than determine if a particular action is detrimental to society as a whole, it is viewed as either right or wrong. These subjective judgements change with the particular world view that happens to be in power. This is the reason why, when you look at our present day Republican and Democrat parties, they look exactly the same even though they appear to have different values. One party claims that big government is evil while the other demonizes large corporations. The fact is that both of these instutions abuse the same thing: the taxpayer's money! Both of these parties climb up on their respective "moral high ground" and fire away at the other. They use emotionally laden, moralistic language, each questioning the other's commitment to the poor, the sick or national security. If anyone should be so bold as to point out the obvious, such as the fact that BOTH Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were once on America's payroll, the candidates of both parites will trip over each other trying to get to the same piece of dirt in order to sound patriotic and promote their party's self serving agenda! The goal then becomes promoting the party and the party's agenda because their particular party knows what is best for the public!
Mill's philosophy, on the other hand, demonstrates how two people espousing opposite world views, such as Howard Stern and Pat Buchanan, can arrive at the same exact conclusion. Ron Paul, who espouses John Stuart Mill's philosophy and similarly, Milton Friedman's economics, believes in what's "best for the most", and has the courage to face down both parties without digressing into moral platitudes, even though he himself espouses a predominantly Christian world view. Even though he shares most of the same conservative values as the majority of his party, he is willing to set his personal views aside and work for the best of everyone. After all, even Locke conceded that religious life and secular life had two different objectives, and keeping them separate proved to be beneficial. Dr. Paul epitomizes the phrase "setting aside our differences" in order to work together for the common good (in the capitalist sense of course). The question now becomes, is the current Republican party worthy of such a candidate?
John Locke's position of natural "God-given" rights introduces a moral component into the question of social politics. To be sure, it is not possible for government and law to be completely amoral. However, it is the premise of these two philosophies that creates the unique approaches taken toward governmental involvement. Mill's approach is one which simply considers what is in the best interests of everyone. "The best for the most." Locke's position, while arriving at the same conclusion of individual sovereignty and personal freedom, carries an assumption which leads to a different course of action. Under Mill's system, government is a necessary evil, which is exactly how Jefferson saw it. A group of people, chosen by the community to see that the community's best interests are maintained and upheld, and to ensure that no one individual's personal freedom is infringed upon by anyone else, be it minority or majority! However, under Locke's philosophy, a moral element is introduced. Government begins to take on a more "paternal" function. Because human rights are "God-given", the work of protecting those rights now becomes sacred. The problem with any religious argument is that it is subject to personal interpretation. Rather than determine if a particular action is detrimental to society as a whole, it is viewed as either right or wrong. These subjective judgements change with the particular world view that happens to be in power. This is the reason why, when you look at our present day Republican and Democrat parties, they look exactly the same even though they appear to have different values. One party claims that big government is evil while the other demonizes large corporations. The fact is that both of these instutions abuse the same thing: the taxpayer's money! Both of these parties climb up on their respective "moral high ground" and fire away at the other. They use emotionally laden, moralistic language, each questioning the other's commitment to the poor, the sick or national security. If anyone should be so bold as to point out the obvious, such as the fact that BOTH Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were once on America's payroll, the candidates of both parites will trip over each other trying to get to the same piece of dirt in order to sound patriotic and promote their party's self serving agenda! The goal then becomes promoting the party and the party's agenda because their particular party knows what is best for the public!
Mill's philosophy, on the other hand, demonstrates how two people espousing opposite world views, such as Howard Stern and Pat Buchanan, can arrive at the same exact conclusion. Ron Paul, who espouses John Stuart Mill's philosophy and similarly, Milton Friedman's economics, believes in what's "best for the most", and has the courage to face down both parties without digressing into moral platitudes, even though he himself espouses a predominantly Christian world view. Even though he shares most of the same conservative values as the majority of his party, he is willing to set his personal views aside and work for the best of everyone. After all, even Locke conceded that religious life and secular life had two different objectives, and keeping them separate proved to be beneficial. Dr. Paul epitomizes the phrase "setting aside our differences" in order to work together for the common good (in the capitalist sense of course). The question now becomes, is the current Republican party worthy of such a candidate?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Ron Paul IS the standard...
Mark my words... right now, Ron Paul is setting the standard for the next election. After all, any Republican who can command the support of Bill Maher , DL Hughley and Howard Stern, is a shoo-in for the presidency. Dr. Paul's influence crosses party lines. Not only that, he has proven himself to be prophetic. As the Obama administration continues to follow the now familiar, Democratic, fiscally irresponsible strategy and pushes us further toward global 'absorption', the scales will fall off of the eyes of those disillusioned to the 'hope' of change.
Presently, Ron Paul is showing up everywhere. When any commentator, analyst or economic forecastor wants to know how far an Obama policy is "off the mark", Ron Paul is called in as a consultant. Even those who find it difficult to swallow his strict constitutionalist adherence have to agree that Dr. Paul has done his research and knows what he is talking about.
In 2012, the bar for each presidential candidate will have already been set by Dr. Paul. He will have sufficiently educated the masses on fiscal responsibility, foreign policy, expectations regarding health care and taxation and smoke and mirrors will no longer be tolerated. If the Republican Party had any sense at all it would hand the keys over to Dr. Paul and simply say; "Tell us what to do". As for the rest of us, we need to provide Dr. Paul with a back-up plan should the party pull another bone-headed stunt and attempt to derail his campaign as before. Something like a 'New Republican' party for example.... Just a thought :>)~
Presently, Ron Paul is showing up everywhere. When any commentator, analyst or economic forecastor wants to know how far an Obama policy is "off the mark", Ron Paul is called in as a consultant. Even those who find it difficult to swallow his strict constitutionalist adherence have to agree that Dr. Paul has done his research and knows what he is talking about.
In 2012, the bar for each presidential candidate will have already been set by Dr. Paul. He will have sufficiently educated the masses on fiscal responsibility, foreign policy, expectations regarding health care and taxation and smoke and mirrors will no longer be tolerated. If the Republican Party had any sense at all it would hand the keys over to Dr. Paul and simply say; "Tell us what to do". As for the rest of us, we need to provide Dr. Paul with a back-up plan should the party pull another bone-headed stunt and attempt to derail his campaign as before. Something like a 'New Republican' party for example.... Just a thought :>)~
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Republican Party to blame in more ways than one...
Just like everyone else in America these days I am struggling to get by. In many ways my Master's Degree in Counseling and years of experience in the mental health field should make me a proponent of liberal ideology. However, I also possess strong rural, religious, conservative values which, despite severe disillusion, continue to influence my world view and opinion. Perhaps this is why I am presently drawn to Ron Paul. It is also the reason why I am outraged at the Republican Party. I have never been a "Party" loyalist. Back when I was more influenced by my conservative religious roots, I supported the Republican party simply because it lined up more with my conservative ideology than the Democratic party. Certain issues like abortion, marriage and other conservative values were "knee jerk" reactionary issues for me then. However, due to age, wisdom, burn-out or just plain cynicism, I have drifted quite a way from the restrictions of that particular world view. For the most part, however, I still consider myself a conservative.
Which is why I am incensed by the so called "conservative" party, the GOP. I haven't made up my mind about George Bush just yet. The irrational, vitriolic hatred displayed by the Democrats against him is indicative of bitterness rather than clear, rational thinking. History may yet reveal that he was as much right as wrong about many things. No, I am angry with the way the Republicans bungled the entire election process. The sole candidate who demonstrated true patriotism, common sense and had the ability to defeat Obama was railroaded. Ron Paul, whom one barely heard during the entire election process is suddenly now everywhere. Amidst ridicule, personal digs, and goads, Dr. Paul kept his composure and stuck to his guns. Now his army of young followers is gaining momentum and they are even more convinced they made the right choice.
In fact, Dr. Paul is carving out a standard by which other potential presidential candiadates are being measured. Americans are now sick and tired of government. Revolution is on the wind. New voices will begin to emerge and the tired old song of corporate greed and military expansion will mostly fall on deaf ears.
Which is why I am incensed by the so called "conservative" party, the GOP. I haven't made up my mind about George Bush just yet. The irrational, vitriolic hatred displayed by the Democrats against him is indicative of bitterness rather than clear, rational thinking. History may yet reveal that he was as much right as wrong about many things. No, I am angry with the way the Republicans bungled the entire election process. The sole candidate who demonstrated true patriotism, common sense and had the ability to defeat Obama was railroaded. Ron Paul, whom one barely heard during the entire election process is suddenly now everywhere. Amidst ridicule, personal digs, and goads, Dr. Paul kept his composure and stuck to his guns. Now his army of young followers is gaining momentum and they are even more convinced they made the right choice.
In fact, Dr. Paul is carving out a standard by which other potential presidential candiadates are being measured. Americans are now sick and tired of government. Revolution is on the wind. New voices will begin to emerge and the tired old song of corporate greed and military expansion will mostly fall on deaf ears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
